<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (2) TMI 1407 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466410</link>
    <description>Admissibility of computer printouts and electronic records was challenged for noncompliance with the statutory certification requirement governing production of device outputs; the tribunal found such printouts inadmissible. Statements recorded by gazetted officers during adjudication were not tested in chief and therefore held irrelevant and inadmissible under the evidentiary rule governing recorded statements. Because electronic evidence and recorded statements could not support clandestine manufacture and clearance, the charge was dismissed, the duty demand was set aside, and no penalty could be imposed due to the defective investigation and inadmissible evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 17:55:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=884775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1407 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466410</link>
      <description>Admissibility of computer printouts and electronic records was challenged for noncompliance with the statutory certification requirement governing production of device outputs; the tribunal found such printouts inadmissible. Statements recorded by gazetted officers during adjudication were not tested in chief and therefore held irrelevant and inadmissible under the evidentiary rule governing recorded statements. Because electronic evidence and recorded statements could not support clandestine manufacture and clearance, the charge was dismissed, the duty demand was set aside, and no penalty could be imposed due to the defective investigation and inadmissible evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>